The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    Racists Convicted Trayvon Martin of Failing to Prove He Deserved to Live

    By Wattree on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 10:16am |

    Beneath the Spin*Eric L. Wattree
     

    Racists Convicted Trayvon Martin of Failing to Prove He Deserved to Live
    .

    Zimmerman Supporters are insisting that anyone who points out racism as a component of the Zimmerman verdict is a race-baiter, while at the same time suggesting that we accept out of hand that because Trayvon was a young Black male, Zimmerman was justified in his assumption that he constituted a threat to the community. How is that not racism?
    .
    More evidence of a racist mind-set is the fact that most Zimmerman supporters are blindly accepting the murderer's version of events - a murderer, I might add, who has been caught in several inconsistencies, and refused to explain how he got to his gun under the scenario that he described. How do they justify that? 
    .
    If a guy is arrested for shooting someone in an alley, would they blindly accept the murderer’s word that the victim attacked him? If so, what's to prevent every murderer from claiming that he was being attacked? Thus, if every murderer was treated with the same level of deference that George Zimmerman was treated, the only way to convict anyone of murder would be with an independent eye witness (http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder...).
    .
    We have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Trayvon did any of the things that Zimmerman claimed. Yet, Zimmerman supporters are claiming that we have to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated a chain of events that ended in the death of an innocent kid. Thus, the murder had been proven, so it was up to Zimmerman to prove that there were mitigating circumstances that made the murder of an unarmed child justified.
    .
    In addition, even if Trayvon did get into an altercation with Zimmerman, didn’t Trayvon have a right to defend himself against a man who 1). stalked him, 2). weighed 40 pounds more than he did, 3). unjustifiably approached him at night, 4). didn’t identify himself, and 5). didn’t have any visible sign of authority? All of those factors made Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense ridiculously flawed.
    .
    But in spite of all that, instead of holding Zimmerman accountable for his reckless behavior, they convicted Trayvon - who was guilty of nothing more criminal than going to the store - of not being able to prove he had a right to live. How is that not racism?
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    It is now "legal" to murder an unarmed Black male in Florida. It is "legal" legal to Stop and Frisk Black males in NYC. There is no need for the men to be committing a crime, the assumption is that young Black males are guilty. Trayvon Martin was found guilty by the Florida justice system.

    Even older Black men are guilty. A Black man in Florida died in jail after being arrested for having a stroke. He was left crawling in his cell for 48 hours before anyone thought to get medical attention.Welcome to the Just-Us system..


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 10:32am

    Juror B37 seems to have had a very limited and biased view of the world. She could not identify with Martin. But George had a "good heart".


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 10:54am

    B-37's agent has backed out of the book deal after a Twitter bomb and petition drive, saying "after careful consideration" she has decided to rescind her offer.


    by Ramona on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 11:42am

    I think that the verdict will make previously complacent people more aware of the times we live in. Black parents will be reviewing the nations history in more detail with their children.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 12:01pm

    Meanwhile, Trayvon Martin will still be dead.


    by Ramona on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 1:17pm

    So?  Are we to shed tears for all who commit felony assault?  Had TRAVVON  lived, and had pummeled Zimmerman into unconsciousness and left him for dead. Could Zimmerman have taken to court and sued Trayvon for assault? Or would he have had to file another in a series of reported felonious activities in that neighborhood? ....Police report: Victim claims he was attacked by an unknown African - American, probably in his teens?  Some would then claim, his blaming a black teen was Zimmerman's racial bias.  


    by Resistance on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 1:45pm

    Again with the conjecture.  Do you ever deal in facts?


    by Ramona on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 2:02pm

    Resistance is just manifesting a Pavlovian response. Simmers on was presumed innocent by the court. Trayvon was presumed guilty and his family had to wait 44 days before charges were brought against his murderer.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 2:12pm

    The only Pavlovian comparison is, Whitey killed an African American, Whitey is guilty of racial bias. We must seek vengeance against Whitey, even though  a jury acquits, Whitey is guilty and will always be guilty.  If Whitey is brought before a jury of all blacks and is still acquitted, the Jurors were Uncle Toms.


    by Resistance on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 2:50pm

    Thanks for that. Any further communication with you would be unproductive. You have told me all that I need to know.

    Your hero, Martin Luther King Jr. Would have been on the side of Trayvon Martin and not the murderer,George Zimmerman.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 2:59pm

    No one is shedding tears or celebrating the vigilant George Zimmerman, Like most thugs, Zimmerman will commit another crime and face justice.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 2:03pm

    What burden of proof would Zimmerman have to meet, in order for a  jury to convict Trayvon of the crime of felony assault with the added hate crime element because Zimmerman was considered to be a cracka. .... If someone hits your car, and the one who caused the accident dies, their estate can still be sued for damages.  Why can't Zimmerman prove he was assaulted, and the perpetrator was found at the scene? What burden of proof is needed, for Zimmerman to prevail?


    by Resistance on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 2:19pm

    See my response to your post above.

    I'm breaking off communication at this point.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 3:01pm

    Resistance,

    Your clouded view of reality has obscured a very fundamental point - had Zimmerman remained in his car as instructed and not confronted Trayvon, no crime of any kind would have been committed, even assuming what Zimmerman alleged was true.

    One of the many problems that’s going to arise from this verdict is it sets a precedent that’s going to allow criminals to commit murder and then claim that they were standing their ground, or acting in self-defense. As I pointed out before, what's to stop a woman's boyfriend from blowing her husband's brains out and then claiming that the husband attacked him when he found out about the affair? Thereafter, the two lovers will be able to take all of the husband's accumulated possessions and live happily ever after, and with complete impunity.

    This is the unintended consequences of injustice. It has a negative impact on us all. It's like telling a lie - it comes back to haunt you. This is the sort of thing that results when the people elect functionally illiterate people to the legislature for solely political purposes, and then distort the law to accommodate racism, self-service, and greed - and it’s not getting any better.

    Now Sarah Palin wants to run for the Senate (I assume she must of saw Capitol Hill from her backyard). The situation in this country has become distressing. We’re allowing hatred and greed to overwhelm our common sense. And the worst part is, we no longer have statesmen to save us from ourselves, because as a result of the thirty-year assault on our educational system, our politicians no longer have an understanding of the fundamentals upon which this nation was based. That’s why we find ourselves in a debate over whether torture is an appropriate tool of engagement, or to what extent we should be able to invade a citizen’s right to privacy.

    This situation is indeed scary.


    by Wattree on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 5:27pm

    In the situation you cite, the adulterer/adulteress could bring their lover into the home, tell the spouse that the lover is moving in and have the lover shoot the spouse because he/ she felt threatened by the tone of voice used by the spouse.

    Drug dealers could steal from each other then claim self- defense backed up by the Stand Your Ground statue to commit murder without penalty.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 5:40pm

    Exactly, RM.

    Another thing that’s bound to happen is karma is going to kick in. Some of these people who are such big supporters of this verdict are going to find one of their love ones in a similar situation as Trayvon. Then, what do you bet that they’re going to be on the opposite side of this debate? It’s like Republicans who find out their own child is gay.

    During the Obamacare debate I wrote the administration and suggested that they find Republicans who fought against healthcare reform under Clinton and later lost everything as a result of illness, and then pay them to do commercials telling their story. I guess they didn’t think that was a very good idea. But I think they should use that tact routinely against Republican policies.

    I’m sure that they’d find no shortage of people to fit the bill, because people are basically hypocrites. They tend to be dead set against a program - jumping up and down, and calling it socialist and un-American . . . until they need it. So if I was God, karma would be one of my favorite tools. When I got through people would be afraid not to love their neighbor.


    by Wattree on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 7:05pm

    There is a First Amendment.

    I understand this.

    Comedians are having real problems, believe it or not with issues related to the rights contained therein.

    So here is Rush Limbaugh!

    Rush Limbaugh's claim that it's acceptable for him to say "nigga" -- with the "a" at the end -- because some African-Americans have used that derivation of the racial slur drew strong criticism from several black journalists and commentators who called him "harsh" and a "bully."

     
    Folks might attack you for your 'approach' to these matters.
     
    BUT DAMN!
     
    I am speechless right now.
     
    Rush will make many more millions just using the 'n' word.
     
    AND IT'S A DAMN SHAME.

     

     

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 7:23pm

    Richard,

    I don’t fixate on the word at all, because I don’t identify it. A person can call me whatever they like and it doesn’t bother me at all, because I’m self-defining. My neighbor once told me that a White gardener I had was talking to him and referred to me as a nigga. Then a few months later he came to me and asked, "You ain’t fired him yet? The guy called you a nigga." I told him, I don’t give a damn what he calls me, as long as he keeps my hedges straight. But the fact was, I recognized that the worst thing I could do to him was to keep him working for me. Because while I might be a nigga, he was working for ME, and that said everything that needed to be said about our respective value as human beings.

    People get much too emotional. You can’t out-scream the ignorant; you have to out think them. Take the Zimmerman verdict, for example. I’m not gonna jump up and down. That’s counterproductive. I happen to know that Zimmerman spends a lot of time on the internet, so I decided to remind him of his fate instead. So I sent him a little message in my article, "Let Us Use Trayvon’s Death to Breathe Life Back Into America":

    "We shouldn't worry about the verdict, per se, because while Zimmerman supposedly "got off," he's far from free. He's gonna have to live the rest of his life like a mole. Imagine having to live your life worried about millions of potential hit men. So justice is prevailing. No more strolls on the beach, no leisurely walks in the park, no more going to the movies with family and friends, or to dinner and a night club for a quick drink - he can no longer do any of those things. He’s essentially in a prison without bars. He's not only going to have to look over his shoulder until the end of his days, but he’s also cursed his entire family."

    Now, that’s productive - it gives Black people an incentive to remain cool, it brings misery to George Zimmerman, and it puts something on the minds of those who might consider following in his footsteps.

    　

    　


    by Wattree on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 10:19pm

    I told him, I don’t give a damn what he calls me, as long as he keeps my hedges straight. But the fact was, I recognized that the worst thing I could do to him was to keep him working for me. Because while I might be a nigga, he was working for ME, and that said everything that needed to be said about our respective value as human beings.

    I have different criteria for rating the value of a human being.

     


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 10:45pm

    "He's gonna have to live the rest of his life like a mole. Imagine having to live your life worried about millions of potential hit men."

    I hesitate to say that people are generally "good" Eric, even though I believe it.  I will say that they are generally not killers and that this fact, more than any, might the dramatic tragedy in Zimmerman's story -- he will look over his shoulder and wear bullet proof vests and jump when a twig snaps but, in all likelihood, nobody is after him.  Oh, yes, people have said things.  But, people say things.  No one, however, is likely, realistically, after him.

    But, this is a man who always thinks something bad is going on, to the point where he took himself from safety into a losing fight that never had to happen in the first place and then killed another human.  His imagination knows only persecution and victimization and that is his prison.

    This man is poised to torture himself and is not equipped to understand why.  That's what the old Greek playwrights used to call "The Furies."  Beasts, they are.  They are unrelenting because you can't let them go.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 10:50pm

    Michael,

    For the most part I agree with what you said, but I think you’re wrong in one respect. You said:

    "Oh, yes, people have said things. But, people say things. No one, however, is likely, realistically, after him."

    Are you kidding!!!!!? George Zimmerman represents Osama Bin Laden in the Black community. Anyone who took him out would be a hero - and that’s a dangerous situation to be in when you consider there are gangsters in the Black community who wouldn’t hesitate to kill a perfect stranger for a pair of Nikes that are two sizes too small. There are many in the Black community who, literally, consider Zimmerman under the Black version of a fatwa, like Ayatollah Khomeini issued against Salman Rushdie. In addition, many Hispanics would even take him out, because he's become the darling of the political right, and he's considered a snitch and a wannabe cop. He's the personification of everything that people on the street hate. I wouldn't trade places with him if someone offered me a billion dollars to do it, because I'd be afraid that wouldn't be enough money to get me far enough away.  If he moved to Dubai, he still wouldn't be completely safe, because nobody likes a coward like him.


    by Wattree on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 12:11am

    I suspect his life will be defined more by the absence of friends and good will than by a preponderance of enemies.  For a time he might find some refuge within a strange community of right wing gun nuts but they all secretly hate him, too, for the cowardice and physical incompetence he evoked in his own defense.  Because, let's face it, even among his supporters he is the embodiment of a certain fear of softness the lack of power that comes with it.

    But, a target the way you say? I suspect the more seasoned killers out there have other priorities.  Zimmerman is bad for business.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 9:42am

    Juror B37 thinks the law needs to be changed so no family has to go through what the Martin family endured.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 07/17/2013 - 11:13pm

    This is a side issue but juror b37 is a prime example of one thing that's wrong with our jury system. We've made a fetish of finding jurors "uncorrupted" by the news. She never heard about the case. She gets all her news from the Today show. She never reads the newspaper, just uses it to line the bottom of her parrot cage. She never reads any news on the internet. Her husband is a lawyer. What the fuck do they talk about?

    One of the biggest news stories in the town she lives in and she knows nothing about it. She's either a liar or a disengaged moron. Is that really what we want on a jury, a completely disengaged moron? I actually think if someone admits they know nothing about a case of this magnitude they should be removed from consideration for being too stupid to make such an important decision.

     


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 12:49am

    She was uniformed but she "knew" that Zimmerman was telling the truth. This Florida court sent a message about race.Trayvon was a thug.Jenteal was a pliar.It is hard for Black parents to instill faith in the justice system after seeing this travesty.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 7:59am

    I would agree, No family should have to go through the anguish caused by the death of one of their kids. We never want to forget the good times. The first words, the first steps. .... My son used to run afoul of the law, and it broke my heart to see him incarcerated, although I knew he deserved the punishment. I couldn't just say "boys  will  be boys" any longer, the court hasn't the time to constantly counsel our wayward children. there comes a time they are forced to learn the hard way. Whether it be drug overdose or from being shot. It hurts the family deeply. My heart is hurt to see Trayvons family bear the grief.       Stand Your Ground appears to make it easy to confront, rather than walk away, although there may be shame; better to be humiliated and live another day,  rather than dead for eternity.       


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 12:57am

    "Stand Your Ground appears to make it easy to confront, rather than walk away, although there may be shame; better to be humiliated and live another day,  rather than dead for eternity."

    This is so twisted, Resistance.  You know who else could have walked away?  Zimmerman.  He had no reason to be out there bothering strangers in the first place.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 9:47am

    He is not going to understand. Zimmerman was the supposed good guy with  gun and Trayvon was the thug. We now live in fear of the good guys who can legally murder an unarmed teen. Martin Luther King Jr would be condemning the Stand Your Ground law and the murder of Trayvon Martin.it is indeed twisted.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 9:55am

    Yeah, time to stop beating our heads against the wall over this.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 10:55am

    Okay, what if a neighborhood decided they needed a paid security guard. What would you expect him to do, what would that guard's interaction be with residents and guests and those unknown? (including "Ever known a paid security guard to carry a weapon?")

    (in any reasonably up-scale apartment building, you also have a doorman and/or other ways of protected entry)


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 12:05pm

    Do you mean an easily identifiable, uniformed security guard with a visible firearm? A strange guy coming out of nowhere to confront someone is far different.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 12:11pm

    So you prefer a guard with a visible firearm? Fine. Would that guard have been allowed to ask Trayvon whether he was staying around there or had a reason to be in the neighborhood?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 1:46pm

    Trayvon would have recognized someone authorized to provide security to the complex.It would not be a random person confronting an unarmed teenager.The uniform aids in identifying a person who would ask questions as part of his/her job. The uniformed guard would likely keep their distance and just make their presence known. The uniform probably would do 99.99% of the job of deterring a criminal.A uniformed person might know that direct confrontation was unwarranted. Trayvon died because Zimmerman was incompetent. Even juror B37 thinks Zimmerman was out of bounds.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 2:07pm

    Maybe they should change the sign at the gate to include, patrolled by undercover or off duty police?


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 2:16pm

    If I paid for a uniformed guard, I'd want them to do more than "keep their distance and just make their presence known".

    So back to the question, "Would that guard have been allowed to ask Trayvon whether he was staying around there or had a reason to be in the neighborhood?"


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 4:11pm

    You want the uniformed security guards to do their jobs. Their job is to deter crime. Crime can be deterred simply by the presence of security. Apartments with alarms deter burglars. Confrontation is a last resort.Would you prefer security guards who stood around and prevented criminal acts or security guards that killed an unarmed child?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 4:29pm

    Shorter rmrd0000 - "no, the security guard can't talk to Trayvon". Enough. You have no solutions if break-ins are occurring - send someone out in a uniform to be a scarecrow. Guess you don't remember the crime rates ~1985-1992, or you simply can't be bothered. We just worry about whether some guest walking around the premises has been inconvenienced.

    Any idea how the Guardian Angels would have handled the neighborhood in their hey-day?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 6:42pm

    Strawman (scarecrow) argument. I gave you burglar alarms as a deterrent. You can even put up signs that warn of the presence of the alarm system to deter criminals. The uniformed security guard are living breathing visibly armed people, not scarecrows. For some reason, you want confrontation. I had noted that mdirect confrontation would be the last resort but uniforms would clear identify the guards as authorized security and decrease the possibility of a misunderstanding.

    This is a very interesting  position.   Trayvon was unarmed. Zimmerman carried a gun.t There were FBI agents asking questions of Ibagim Todashev. Todashev was unarmed and wound up being murdered. Do you approve the results of the questioning? Zimmerman's questioning technique appears to be as successful.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 8:24pm

    I could imagine two suspects casing a condo. Determining the owner of the condo goes to the clubhouse, every evening between 7 to 9pm to work out. The lookout wandering aimlessly as though they were lost; but his intention is to make sure the condo owner has stayed on their routine  and at the same time, looks to see where the uniformed guard is and notices he's on the other side of the complex. He calls his accomplice /s on the cell phone and says NOW, take the slim Jim open the Arcadia door. We can be in and out in less than 3 minutes, before the guard suspects we were here and the condo owner returning to find his valuables gone.  HMMMMM  Does anyone know if Trayvon was on the cell phone with someone else, besides his girl-friend?  


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 9:21pm

    So every home owner has to equip every door and window with an alarm. Presumably all these alarms will go to the police station to resolve whether there's a real problem or not when they go off, or you just have a whooping 100dB burglar alarm or those "step back from the car" ones that for some period became the bane of urban life until I think they were banned for being a public nuisance. All because rmrd0000 can't stomach a guard asking a stranger in the neighborhood - young punk or old fart - "excuse me, but are you visiting someone here?"

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 1:35am

    A sign indicating that the apartment has alarms may deter most criminals. Ifs ou actually place the alarms the apartment alarm itself would make it unlikely that a burglar would continue to remove items from the apartment. 

    Uniform security guards would be easily recognized as having the authority to question. Vigilantes who approach at dusk could easily be perceived as a threat or even a racist cracker by a teen walking alone.Martin had reason to fear for his safety when approached by a stranger.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 9:04am

    The presence of uniformed security scares off most criminals. alarms catch the dedicated burglars. Martin and Todashev were confronted.Neither were charged with a crime.Both died from running into bullets fires by incompetent people. In both case the good guys with guns failed.

    Because you wanted your apartment complex secured by inept vigilantes, you now pay out a huge settlement to an innocent child's parent. If Todashev's death was due to stupidity, so was Martin's

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 11:14pm

    Yeah,  like all burglars wear black stripped prison clothing. How many security guards do think should patrol the complex; it's not Fort Knox? The guard usually walks around from one end to the other or sits at the gate. Duh! If I had criminal intent I wouldn't use the gate and I would make  sure the guard was at a point farthest away from my criminal activity.    


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 12:20am

    I think I saw that movie ;-)


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 1:42am

    Todashev? price of rice in China?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 1:36am

    Both unarmed and dead.

    We are assuming the conversation went as Zimmerman stated.A uniformed security could ask question.A random stranger could induce fear. Trayvon would not be obligated to answer. Martin was able to stand his ground when Zimmerman became aggressive.

    Martin dodged Zimmerman's punches.Zimmerman lost the fistfight.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 7:31am

    Grass stains on the clothing of both indicate they were rolling on the ground during the brawl. Grass stains on the top of Zimmerman's shoes make it probable he was on top of Martin at some point during that fight.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 1:27pm

    Having accepted as truth, Zimmermans claims, Did it occur to you; Zimmerman had grass on his toes,because  how else do you get up from when your back it's  against the ground. You roll over, as you push your assailant off . You turn onto your knees and push yourself up, and your toes flex to assist you in getting up, when you are on all 4. DOH!


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 2:15pm

    Curtis Sliwa the founder of the Guardian Angels  points out the things that Zimmerman did wrong. Sliwa calls Zimmerman a "wannabe". The founder of the organization that drew attention to neighborhood watch thinks that Zimmerman was out of bounds.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 10:17am

    I respectfully disagree, just because someone is observing, that does not give Trayvon, reason to assault another. They could have just stared down each other, but the moment Trayvon asked Zimmerman "You got a problem" and Zimmerman responded "No I dont have a problem" and Trayvon after sizing Zimmerman up; and not seeing the gun initially;  Trayvon went beyond his rights, when he stepped up his aggressive behavior by stating  "you have one now" and Trayvon decided to use more force than necessary against Zimmerman. ....     When I was in school, we discussed Rights, and the instructor stated right up to another's nose, ....... Travon exceeded his rights, by going beyond the tip of someone's nose, when he tried to smash Zimmermans  face and pound his head on the sidewalk. Why?  Because  G Zimmerman was observing?.... "Mom he was looking at me funny, so I proceeded to smash his face in" .. Trayvon  escalated the tension from words, to violence...... Zimmerman did not touch him inappropriately. so what really was Tryavon defending against that would require more force, on the part of Trayvon?   ....Nothing.... but Trayvons aggressive nature, not Zimmerman's observations, as was his right, especially given the fact he was the Neighbor Hood watch guy...... Who says Zimmerman had to wear a uniform? I know of some undercover officers, who dont make themselves known when observing.   Beisdes; Trayvon  didnt wait for an explanation from Zimmerman, as to his business. he went straight  to "You got a problem now"  No Trayvon supporters, it was he that had the problem, when he attacked an armed man. Trayvon didnt see the gun initially or he might have reconsidered his aggressive behavior. The intended victim of his aggression was armed. The wiser course was for Trayvon to assume the stranger might be armed and that bad ass attitude and fists are no match. FACT : At the club house Zimmerman only observed and called the Non emergency number,  he made no confrontational moves, and I suspect it was his objective on the sidewalk to only observe. Till he was attacked and was being forced to shut him up from crying for help. 


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 2:09pm

    "Trayvons (sic) aggressive nature..."

    I am assigning you a book report on your own posts.  I want you to understand yourself before we discuss this further.  Your use of language implies a latent belief in the savage caricature of dark skinned people that I'd expect to see more in late 18th and early 19th century internet comments.

    Speaking of which, you guys remember Voltaire, from TPMCafe?


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 2:31pm

    It is amazing to see people who love Martin Luther King, but hate everything that he stood for.

    I really don't  remember Voltaire.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 3:05pm

    A joke.  "18th and 19th century internet commenters?"  There is no Volatire.  Except for the pre-Internet author.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 4:47pm

    I got the centuries as a joke, but thought that someone might actually used the moniker. I'm awake now


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 5:09pm

    I bet some one did...


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 5:53pm

    I''m sorry, but I don't get the joke;  get the hook  


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 6:26pm

    Martin Luther king as a man of the cloth, wouldn't have defended an evil doer, or anyone who assaults another human being. Color isnt the measure, it is ones conduct. Martin Luther King, (may god keep you in his protection) would never have excused, any assaulter, of any color. King was  about truth and justice FOR ALL, and not the permitting of excuses to justify leniency because of ones skin color.  I hope you're not trying to dishonor his message and what his life stood for? 


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 6:43pm

    You are mistaken, if a white man had done what Trayvon was purported to have done to Zimmerman, I would still believe; anyone that assaults another, has serious aggressive tendencies and not because of ones skin color.  It  must be one of your delusions, to attribute to anyone that seeks TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, would have some deep seated hatred of one of our brothers/sisters?...... It is apparent it is you that has some preferential side and if one disagrees with your opinion, you attribute racism must be an element in my decision making?  When in fact it is you speaking from your heart, your preference. As for me, I am impartial, just as my heavenly father is impartial.  To put it simply" I am color blind", but I am not blind to illegal conduct, assaulting another human being; is illegal. Defending oneself against assault is called self preservation, last I understood, it wasn't illegal in the State of Florida . smiley


    by Resistance on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 6:23pm

      We don't know that Trayvon attacked first; Zimmerman just said so. Was it Zimmerman who says Trayvon said "you have one now"and Zimmerman who says he tried to placate Trayvon? Not exactly disinterested testimony. The witness Trayvon was talking to on the phone says he just asked why he was being followed, and that Zimmerman demanded to know what he was doing there. Zimmerman precipatated the confrontation; he could have just waited for the police.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 11:08pm

    Spelling, it's precipitated.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 11:09pm

    Oh sure, the friend on the phone was disinterested? Thats why she lied to the police to protect Trayvons mother and Trayvon himself.  Keep up Aaron, it was Zimmerman who had the physical evidence of an assault. Except for the bullet hole, Trayvon had little evidence that he was the victim.  


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 12:12am

    The jury gave the verdict that the racists wanted. Ted Nugent is full of glee. Limbaugh can now use a word that he has been dying to use on air. It is open season on unarmed Black male teens. The justice system failed miserably.

    We won't be seeing the NRA starting a program to teach young Black men how to defend themselves, because the guy with the record of assaulting a police officer and who needed to have a restraining order is the "good guy".

    The racists won this case.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 10:12am

    Blacks, women and those under thirty were more likely to feel that Zimmerman was guilty


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 10:57am

    Except by coincidence the 6 women on the jury?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 6:44pm

    Small sample size. Not unexpected statistically.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 7:20pm

    Quoting the captain of the Titanic I presume.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 1:38am

    Your statement makes no sense.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 7:26am

    The Titanic had been warned about icebergs.The captain sailed on at high speed anyway.The captain felt that since the Titanic was big and made of steel, that icebergs were not a problem. The captain ignored the risks. The collision with an iceberg was taken into consideration by the captain. The result of the Captain's decision was one predicted statistically.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 9:17am

    Humorless.


    by AnonymousPP (not verified) on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 9:35am

    Its obvious, Trayvon's defenders would never accept a jury decision unless; it was from a stacked jury pool, that would deliver the verdict they wanted. They now cry about the corrupt justice system, because it didn't work the way they schemed and worked to deny Zimmerman a fair trial. Had their side prevailed, they would have sang praises about the wisdom of the jury. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/19/2013 - 2:26pm

    Robert Zimmerman has not talked directly to his brother George after the acquittal because Obama is tapping the phones.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/18/2013 - 1:23pm